Expert Witness: Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman when teen was shot

[UncleMilti]

I'm confused. FL law clearly states you cannot be held liable in a civil or monetary case for shooting someone in self defense.

A couple lawyers are saying if a civil case is brought all Zimmerman has to do is claim Stand Your Ground or Self Defense and the Court has to nullify the case or refuse to hear it.

So why is CNN running a "Civil Lawsuit Coming" piece every 20 minutes?

 

[boozeman]

I'm confused. FL law clearly states you cannot be held liable in a civil or monetary case for shooting someone in self defense.

A couple lawyers are saying if a civil case is brought all Zimmerman has to do is claim Stand Your Ground or Self Defense and the Court has to nullify the case or refuse to hear it.

So why is CNN running a "Civil Lawsuit Coming" piece every 20 minutes?

That probably means they are referring more to the federal case Sharpton and Jackson keep banging a gong for.

If that's the case, that would do more to racially divide the country than anything else.

The federal government has absolutely positively no right to interfere if that is what Florida law dictates.

 

[boozeman]

It is pretty sad when this, not Sandy Hook, may lead to increased discourse on gun control:

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.

 

[Bluestar71]

It is pretty sad when this, not Sandy Hook, may lead to increased discourse on gun control:

I very seriously doubt this leads to any serious new push on gun control. We're going into another election cycle and the Democrats found out yet once again earlier this year this issue is radioactive for them. And above all else they believe in keeping their jobs.

 

[UncleMilti]

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

 

[Carp]

I still think Zimmerman was mostly at fault here, but the jury found him not guilty so i'll respect that.

 

[boozeman]

I still think Zimmerman was mostly at fault here, but the jury found him not guilty so i'll respect that.

HOW CAN U RESPECKT A SYSTEM THAT FAILED TRAYVON?

Simple thing is, if the jury was comprised of six black women, that would somehow be deemed "fair".

These people should be outraged at the specific idiots who tried the case. They could have easily nailed him with manslaughter.

 

[Carp]

I just can't see how he is not guilty of anything...I guess the prosecutors just must have been all in on a murder charge.

 

[boozeman]

I just can't see how he is not guilty of anything...I guess the prosecutors just must have been all in on a murder charge.

That looks like what they did to me. They went swinging for the fences instead of getting the single that ultimately would have won the game.

The way the case of presented did not make it reasonable for anyone to even get him for manslaughter.

 

[Deuce]

That looks like what they did to me. They went swinging for the fences instead of getting the single that ultimately would have won the game.

The way the case of presented did not make it reasonable for anyone to even get him for manslaughter.

That's why the prosecution failed to get any convictions in the Anthony case. They were so hard up for Murder 1 that they didnt give the jury a chance to look at lesser charges.

But in this case, I don't think it mattered. Manslaughter is thrown out if it's deemed self defense and obviously the jury bought that reasoning.

 

[boozeman]

That's why the prosecution failed to get any convictions in the Anthony case. They were so hard up for Murder 1 that they didnt give the jury a chance to look at lesser charges.

But in this case, I don't think it mattered. Manslaughter is thrown out if it's deemed self defense and obviously the jury bought that reasoning.

They bought it because of the poorly constructed case. It could have been done.

And then there would be "justice".

Nah, I don't believe that for a second.

 

[Carp]

Riots in Oakland...good lord, that annoys me.

 

[boozeman]

Riots in Oakland...good lord, that annoys me.

I am pretty impressed it was limited to setting fires and destroying cop cars instead of hitting up Best Buy for big screens.

 

[Carp]

I mean Oakland though...in fucking California...god damn.

 

[boozeman]

I mean Oakland though...in fucking California...god damn.

What is funny is that there has been more rioting in California than locally where this really should matter.

That whole state is filled with a bunch of self-entitled free loaders that think someone owes them something. I never realized that until I actually started spending a good chunk of my year there.

 

[Carp]

I'm from Cali...grew up in No Cal though...that was great...now So Cal and the Bay Area...F them.

 

[Smitty]

I just can't see how he is not guilty of anything...I guess the prosecutors just must have been all in on a murder charge.

Easy. Manslaughter makes no sense.

He did not "recklessly" kill Martin. It was very deliberate. You may be trying to say that he was reckless when he didn't listen to the dispatcher, but that's too removed from the actual killing to say that the killing itself was reckless. It wasn't, it was deliberate. His following of Martin may have been reckless, but his killing of Martin was not, it was deliberate. So it's murder (unless he has self-defense available to him). Manslaughter is for things like accidents, like DUI, where you don't intend for the victim to be harmed. Here, Zimmerman very clearly intended to shoot Martin. Not manslaughter.

If he was going to be convicted, murder was the charge that made sense. Manslaughter was a last-minute tack-on by the prosecution (he wasn't originally charged with it, and they only instructed the jury that they may find him guilty of it after both cases had rested) in an attempt to say "Damn! Our case for murder sucked so if you want to have pity on our ineptness, maybe just stick him with these even though it makes no sense?"

In both cases, however, self-defense is a defense to murder AND manslaughter.

So if you believe Zimmerman had the right to self-defense, he's not guilty of either crime.

If you don't believe Zimmerman had the right to self-defense, the murder charge is really the more appropriate one. Anyone who is an "aggressor" in a physical confrontation is not entitled to use self-defense.

In this case, the jury realized that there was zero evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor (started the physical fight) and therefore he had the right to self-defense, and therefore he could not be guilty of either charge.

I know you want to say "BUT HE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR STARTING THE WHOLE THING BY FOLLOWING MARTIN" but for the millionth time, following someone is not a crime. Is Zimmerman morally to blame because he did something wrong by profiling Martin and following him? Maybe.

But that does not impute criminal liability here. So you can think he was wrong to follow Martin all you want, but unless you can prove that Zimmerman actually threw the first punch (or otherwise did something to be considered "the aggressor" of the physical confrontation that was MORE THAN following Martin), then there is no way to legally strip Zimmerman of his right to shoot someone who was very clearly pummeling him.

 

[Cotton]

What is funny is that there has been more rioting in California than locally where this really should matter.

That whole state is filled with a bunch of self-entitled free loaders that think someone owes them something. I never realized that until I actually started spending a good chunk of my year there.

That's what happens when victimization is condoned and even promoted. That state is a mess because of the extreme liberals that run it.

 

[Carp]

Easy. Manslaughter makes no sense.

He did not "recklessly" kill Martin. It was very deliberate. You may be trying to say that he was reckless when he didn't listen to the dispatcher, but that's too removed from the actual killing to say that the killing itself was reckless. It wasn't, it was deliberate. His following of Martin may have been reckless, but his killing of Martin was not, it was deliberate. So it's murder (unless he has self-defense available to him). Manslaughter is for things like accidents, like DUI, where you don't intend for the victim to die. Here, Zimmerman very clearly intended to shoot Martin. Not manslaughter.

If he was going to be convicted, murder was the charge that made sense. Manslaughter was a last-minute tack-on by the prosecution (he wasn't originally charged with it, and they only instructed the jury that they may find him guilty of it after both cases had rested) in an attempt to say "Damn! Our case for murder sucked so if you want to have pity on our ineptness, maybe just stick him with these even though it makes no sense?"

In both cases, however, self-defense is a defense to murder AND manslaughter.

So if you believe Zimmerman had the right to self-defense, he's not guilty of either crime.

If you don't believe Zimmerman had the right to self-defense, the murder charge is really the more appropriate one. Anyone who is an "aggressor" in a physical confrontation is not entitled to use self-defense.

In this case, the jury realized that there was zero evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor (started the physical fight) and therefore he had the right to self-defense, and therefore he could not be guilty of either charge.

I know you want to say "BUT HE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR STARTING THE WHOLE THING BY FOLLOWING MARTIN" but for the millionth time, following someone is not a crime. Is Zimmerman morally to blame because he did something wrong by profiling Martin and following him? Maybe.

But that does not impute criminal liability here. So you can think he was wrong to follow Martin all you want, but unless you can prove that Zimmerman actually threw the first punch (or otherwise did something to be considered "the aggressor" of the physical confrontation that was MORE THAN following Martin), then there is no way to legally strip Zimmerman of his right to shoot someone who was very clearly pummeling him.

I'm not going to read this. Thanks though.

 

[Smitty]

That looks like what they did to me. They went swinging for the fences instead of getting the single that ultimately would have won the game.

The way the case of presented did not make it reasonable for anyone to even get him for manslaughter.

Well, they had no evidence to show that he recklessly killed Martin.

Here's an example of a reckless killing by firearm.

I get super, black out drunk, and then pull out my firearm and start shooting it off without discretion in a crowded bar, it hits someone and kills them. I may not "INTEND" for anyone to die, but my conduct is so reckless that I am guilty of manslaughter. There was such a high danger that shooting a gun off randomly in public would end up killing someone, that I am criminally liable for my act, despite not intending to kill someone. Notice that the moment of recklessness was in pulling the trigger, not in getting drunk or bringing a gun into a bar (ie, the things that happened earlier, like not listening to a certain dispatcher).

You people don't understand what manslaughter means. I think you are thinking of it as "like murder but not as bad." That's not correct.

Zimmerman acted deliberately when he shot Martin. Under the law, murder or acquittal were the only two things that made sense.

The only reason to convict him of manslaughter would be if you wanted to depart from what the law actually says just to punish him, but then that's easily appealable because it's so nutty.